All that is written are my own opinions.

FOUNDED IN 1994

Socratic Circle:
Being the very first registered political discussion group in Singapore is their only claim to fame. Its members saw less than a handful of interviews in the papers throughout 7 years, the last being 2000. Today, this NGO is hardly heard from any more. The last was some dinner which was not even reported in their own web site, but Think Center's web site! As I last checked, their web site is not updated since Dec 2000. In total, this group did not help much to advance civil society space.

The Roundtable:
A group of academics coming together claiming to represent the people's political interests is a bad idea to start with. The have-nots make up the bulk in every society, and what is the have-it-alls going to represent unless they can push for changes. For Roundtable, they are only harping on liberalising some Societies Act which is still as tight as ever. And with their credentials they never took the final step of standing for elections but waiting for a miracle that the government will one day allow them more freedom. Which is why, apart from two MPs at the grace if PAP and a few letters to Straits Times, they did nothing else. It is mostly a one man show at any one time. You get to hear one person from the group interviewed by ST but they never come together. The people in this NGO looks like they formed this 'million-dollar roundtable' only to feel good about themselves. In the end they only achieve 3 things - 1) 'malu' Singapore civil society 2) give our academic Singaporeans a bad name 3) creating the belief that there is democracy in Singapore with their existence.

Singapore Internet Community (SINTERCOM):
The group that tried to register as an internet society, I am not sure if they are still trying but their web site is slowly dying out, so I don't think they need to try any more. They recently re-launched their new internet discussion group which is even more active than the web site, thanks (or no thanks) to the people who are even more active than the people who run the web site. Throughout the 7 years of their existence, no internet laws were relaxed. Instead the government is now even planning to impose guidelines. Yet SINTERCOM has not breathed a word on this matter.

(It seems that 1994 is not a good time for a political 'startup' with all 3 NGOs in compromising positions today.)

FOUNDED IN 1999

Open Singapore Center:
For a group that is founded by the opposition which is always seen in a bad light, especially Dr Chee and JBJ, they have a very strong objectives and purpose of existence. However, a pity it is torn apart by the foreign funding it receives. I personally don't think political NGOs in Singapore should receive any foreigner aid in terms of money. Also, it has not much progress as a vehicle for Dr Chee in the NGO sector and what it does only stand to benefit SDP's electoral chances, not Singapore.

Singapore Mediawatch Community:
I think the SMWC will become the butt of jokes in years to come and the laughing stock of all NGOs worldwide. The credentials of would-be founders plus its immense manpower resources amount to nothing after two years. Their main grouse -- RCB is still pondering over their application to register as a Company Without Guarantee. But with their resources, they cannot even find ways to exist in another form? Such as a Company, Partnership Company or Foundation. The only explanation for their slow progress is their members' lack of commitment to the cause.

Think Center:
Here, I must say Think Center stands out among the rest of political NGOs. It did not fall into the trap that Socratic Circle and Roundtable both fall into by registering as a society, or SMWC by choosing to register under very complicated terms. Its web site did not 'lose steam' like SINTERCOM. When both Open Singapore Center and Think Center were gazette by the PAP government, the former was found to have accepted foreign funds but Think Center SMARTLY announced that they were only $900 rich and it was from their own pockets, gaining lots more credibility. It also made history so many times -- like the first human rights forum with a permit, Save JBJ Rally (the first time I remember a non-political party had a rally and outside election time), first time an NGO commemorated Human Rights Day in Singapore and so many others things that I have lost count! It is the only group that dares to work with the Singapore opposition, discarding the theory 'non-partisan'. Afterall, why not opposition since Singapore 21 says 'Every Singaporean Matters'. In fact I think although Singapore 21 is an idea of PAP, Think Center actually carries it out better than them and anyone else! It shows they are made up of people who are really serious in changing the political environment in Singapore which is now full of fear and weakness.

Some of the political NGOs in turn say that Think Center is more aggressive which is not a good thing. Can I then say the rest of the NGOs have no b*lls or brains, which is not a good thing either! If being more active is being more aggressive, then if someone in our office is hardworking and is promoted quickly, do we brand him a backstabber? Maybe the people in these weak NGOs will. And they will only remind me of the office rumourmonger who says bad things about other just because they do not work and have no share of the pie. In short they are simply envious and jealous of Think Center!

You have my support Think Center, and please continue your good work!